This is certainly not my field, but it stands to reason that a sudden sharp increase in confirmed cases will naturally accompany a reduction in mortality rate for a time. An increase in the number of deaths would occur later, as there is logically some time that passes between initial infection and death. It seems to me that a more informative ratio to determine mortality rate would be the number of deaths divided by all concluded cases (number of deaths plus number of recoveries.) The ratio of deaths divided by total confirmed cases that you mentioned results in a distorted rate, as it treats all of those that are currently infected by the virus as if they have recovered. The number of deaths has risen, but the death rate, as you have calculated it, seems to have gone down because of the sudden dramatic increase in new cases that are currently battling the virus. I'm not trying to be alarmist, but rather believe that we need to be sure of what the statistics we are looking at mean. Hopefully, the day will come where there will be no new cases. When that day comes, however, it seems likely to me that there will continue to be victims that succumb to the disease for a period of time until everyone that's been infected recovers.
Is the "Fighting Irish" really derogatory? I think you are stretching on that one. Seems that it came from the third president of the University of Notre Dame who fought in the Civil War in the Irish brigade.
If you are outdoors and 20 feet away from someone you should be fine. People aren't getting this outdoors twenty feet away from others. Even if it travels 20 feet it would be so dissipated you would get such a small part of the virus you aren't going to be harmed.